Potential Predatory Journals In Pathology: A Comprehensive Assessment

Ibrahim Abdelhafez

College of Medicine, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar

• gfg

Disclosure

Semir Vranic serves as an editor-in-chief of the Bosnian Journal of Basic Medical Sciences and a consulting editor for Breast Cancer: Targets and Therapy. Saghir Akhtar is an editor-in-chief of the Journal of Drug Targeting. Faruk Skenderi is a managing editor of the Bosnian Journal of Basic Medical Sciences. Other authors declare no conflict of interest.

• gfg

Introduction

• Predatory journals refer to journals that recruit articles through

aggressive marketing and spam emails, promising quick, but not

robust review and fast open-access (OA) publication.

• Their key motive is a financial benefit via article processing charges

(APCs).

• The number of predatory publishers has expanded from 18 in 2011 to

more than 1100 in 2016.

• Predatory journals have come into focus after Jeffrey Beall posted his

first list of potential predatory, OA publishers and journals in 2011.

• It is important to note that OA is not correlated with the legitimacy of

the journal.

• gfg

Introduction

• Recent studies have highlighted the impact of potentially predatory

journals in several biomedical fields including neuroscience/neurology,

urology, emergency medicine, physical medicine and pediatrics.

• The role and presence of potential predatory journals in pathology

have not been explored yet.

• gfg

Methods

Journals Identification and Selection

• The Beall’s list of predatory journals was used as an initial database.

• We only described “potential predatory” after assessing each journal

separately based on the recommended criteria by (Clemons et al.,

2017; Shamseer et al., 2017)

• Between January and May 2018

• Legitimate pathology journals were obtained from major bibliographic

databases: PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science/Science Citation

Index/Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI/SCIE).

• We also assesed the status of all journals in COPE and WAME.

• gfg

Methods

Data Collection

• The obtained Journals were assessed based on the criteria proposed

by Clemons et al., 2017 and Shamseer et al., 2017:

Indexing and impact factor

Clarity of peer-review process

Availability of archive

Legitimacy of editorial board

The status of international standard serial number (ISSN)

Emphasis on open access

Website integrity

Amount of requested APCs

Publication ethics and policies

• gfg

Results

• We identified 69 potential predatory journals and 89 legitimate ones in the

field of pathology.

• Only one of the identified potential predatory journal in pathology (Journal

of Modern Human Pathology) was indexed in the DOAJ.

• None of these potential predatory journals were indexed in

MEDLINE/PubMed or Web of Science (SCI/SCIE)

• Only 83% of the potential predatory journals displayed the required APC

in their web sites.

• The mean APC was significantly higher among the legitimate OA

pathology journals (US$ 2837.6 vs. US$ 814.3; range US$ 550-4100 vs.

US$ 50-2700; p < 0.001).

ResultsTable 1: A Sample of 10 Potential Predatory Journals from our Study (n=69).

Journal Publisher

1 Academic Open Clinical Pathology Research Journal Academic Knowledge and Research Publishing

2 BAOJ Pathology and Clinical Research Bio Accent

3 Case Reports in Clinical Pathology Sciedu Press

4 Diagnostic Pathology: Open Access OMICS International

5 Global Scientific Research Journal of Pathology Global Scientific Research Journals

6 Integrative Clinical Pathology Scient Open Access

7 Annals of Clinical Pathology JSciMed Central

8 The open forensic science journal Bentham Open

9 Journal of Clinical & Anatomic Pathology JScholar Journals

10 Pathology Discovery Herbert Open Access Journals

• gfg

Results

• 30% potential predatory journals had misleading titles, which appear

to be tied to those of legitimate ones.

• 31% of the potential predatory journals were indexed in the databases

that generate bogus impact factors.

• More specifically, 19% of the potential predatory journals

promoted their Index Copernicus value, whereas only 4% of the

legitimate journals presented this impact factor.

• Out of the 69 suspected journals, only 48% had a valid ISSN.

ResultsFigure 1: A comparison of quality characteristics among the pathology journals.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Having spelling and/or grammar errors in the website

Distorted and/or fuzzy images

Missing/pending ISSN number

Missing names of editorial board members

Submission via email

Ambiguous or unclear peer-review process

Index Copernicus value

PubMed indexed

Medline indexed

DOAJ indexed

COPE listed

Unreal or small number of issues per year

Rapid publication is promised

Presence of plagiarism policy

Retain copyright of published articles

potential predatory legitimate

ResultsTable 2: A Sample of 11 potential predatory journals in pathology with names resemblance with

those of the legitimate pathology journals (n = 21).

Predatory Legitimate

1. Journal of Modern Human Pathology

2. TJPRC: Journal of Human Pathology & Research

Human Pathology

Modern Pathology

American Journal of Pathology

3. Case Reports in Clinical Pathology Case Reports in Pathology

4. International Journal of Pathology Research and Practice

Pathology Research and Practice

Pathology and Oncology Research

5. Archives of Pathology and Microbiology

6. Archives of Pathology and Clinical Research

7. Pathology and Laboratory Medicine - Open Journal

Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine

8. Diagnostic Pathology: Open Access

9. Clinical and Diagnostic PathologyDiagnostic Pathology

10. Journal of Clinical & Experimental Pathology

11. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental

Pathology

International Journal of Experimental Pathology

• gfg

Conclusions

• Of the analyzed journals, 69 were potential predatory, while 89 were

legitimate, which presents substantial burden to the field of pathology.

• About 30% of the potential predatory journals have misleading titles,

which resemble those of the legitimate journals.

• The mean of APC of potential predatory journals in pathology was

significantly lower than that of legitimate OA journals.

• Finally, pathology researchers are strongly advised to check the

journal’s status on PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science and/or DOAJ

as well as the previously proposed criteria confirmed in this study

before submitting a manuscript to a pathology journal.

• gfg

Contributions & Funding

• Yaman M. AlAhmad1, Farhan S. Cyprian1, Faruk Skenderi2, Saghir

Akhtar1, Semir Vranic1

1 College of Medicine, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar2 Department of Pathology, Clinical Center, University of Sarajevo,

Sarajevo,

Bosnia and Herzegovina

• This research was supported by the student grant number (#QUST-1-CMED-2018-10) provided by the College of Medicine, Qatar University.

• gfg

References

1. Beall, J. (2012). Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature, 489(7415), 179.

2. Beall, J. (2016). Predatory journals: Ban predators from the scientific record. Nature, 534(7607), 326.

3. Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Maduekwe, O., Turner, L., Barbour, V., Burch, R., . . . Shea, B. J. (2017). Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison. BMC Med, 15(1), 28.

4. Di Lena, M., & Nickel, J. C. (2018). Publish and perish: A urological perspective on predatory publications. Can Urol Assoc J.

5. Hansoti, B., Langdorf, M. I., & Murphy, L. S. (2016). Discriminating Between Legitimate and Predatory Open Access Journals: Report from the International Federation for Emergency Medicine Research Committee. West J Emerg Med, 17(5), 497-507.

6. Manca, A., Martinez, G., Cugusi, L., Dragone, D., Mercuro, G., & Deriu, F. (2017). Predatory Open Access in Rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 98(5), 1051-1056.

Thank you for your attention!